http://1.usa.gov/nDrXOa

In 1997 the United States federal government opened the floodgates for direct-to-consumer marketing of pharmaceuticals by relaxing previous restrictions and legislation.^[1] Just one year prior, reports indicated pharmaceutical sales advertising expenditures ranged around just over half a billion dollars. By 2009, that amount had skyrocketed to nearly five billion dollars, just in direct-to-consumer advertising alone, not including advertising to physicians and clinicians. ^[2]

With the dawn of DTC advertising, consumers were able to see for themselves the plethora of prescription drugs available to them for any and every type of ailment and illness. Until that time, the average consumer was relegated to blind faith in their physician, and his advice to, “Take two of these and call me tomorrow.” A report by AARP from 2010 indicates 90% of Americans aged 18 and over have heard or seen a pharmaceutical advertisement. ^[3]

There are three basic recognized direct-to-consumer ad campaign types: product claim ads, help seeking ads, and reminder ads.^[4] These marketing types fall under various policies and laws, and are not all regulated by the FDA. Their focus on certain drugs goes from unmistakable and deliberate, to mere presumptions of knowledge about a product on the part of the consumer. 

• Product claim advertising has the most restrictions put upon it since it does mention a specific drug. Per the Food and Drug Administration, this type of marketing must make clear what the drug is for, how it can help, and what the risks are in taking it. 
•  Reminder ads, while still considered advertisements for specific drugs, are not under such stringent requirements, since they do not specifically say what conditions they treat. They are not required to list all the possible side effects and risks. Although still regulated by the FDA, the advertisements cannot portray either visually or audibly what the drug is for. Further, there are certain drugs that cannot be advertised by way of reminder advertisements because their side effects are too serious, and therefore must be mentioned, according to the policies of the FDA. 
• Help seeking ads are regulated by the Federal Trade Commission because they do involve trade policies and laws, but there is no oversight by the FDA. Help seeking ads are designed to bring consumers’ attention to such conditions as asthma and erectile dysfunction. However, the marketing does not advertise any specific drug in any way. The ads will sometimes have a phone number and the name of a pharmaceutical company where consumers are invited to call to get more information about certain conditions and their treatments.

Pro-activists for the direct-to-consumer cause tout the benefits of more knowledge on behalf of the individual patient. Such knowledge, they say, allows consumers to make more informed choices, along with their physician, as to the best course for their care. Physicians have reported a more active role on the part of the patient, which leads to a better quality of care in most instances. Patients being more informed about their own medical conditions and having and informed understanding of their healthcare could quite possibly play a very important role in provisional quality care in the United States with all the upcoming changes to healthcare laws regulations.

The question arises as to whether or not the ideals of the stronger physician/patient relationship actually work in retrograde. Naysayers point to the many physicians reporting a more aggressive approach on the part of some patients, who insist they need a certain type of medication or procedure, when it would not, in fact, be beneficial to them. Doctors report a feeling on the part of patients that the doctor is withholding something from them, when in fact the doctor simply wants not to over-diagnose or over-prescribe. Physicians describes incidents where they have had to “fire” patients due to the patients’ refusals to cooperate with what the doctor wants to prescribe for a course of treatment.

With the enactment of laws to prohibit drug companies from overstating the benefits of drugs while understating the risks and side-effects, the pharmaceutical industry has been forced to re-evaluate how it presents its products to the consumer. A 2010 report from Reuters tends to suggest it is somewhat of a cat-and-mouse game, with the FDA constantly trying to stay up-to-date on the most recent hard advertising push by ‘Big Pharma’.^[5]   

As insurance premiums and prescription prices increase, the pharmaceutical industry will have no choice but continue to push sales to stay in the market. There will have to be an eventual understanding between the physician, the patient and the regulating bodies as to how patients are informed of all their treatment options. Until then, it is ultimately up to the consumer to make informed educated choices about their health, while remembering to take into consideration the opinions of the physicians, who are, ultimately, the final authority on what treatments and prescriptions are appropriate to each situation.

Sex advice is being replaced by sex aids! Now 12-years-olds are being made available DIY (do it yourself) abortion kits and vaccinations against HPV, a sexually transmitted infection.

If the new bill proposed by doctors, that is yet to be passed in parliament goes through, British schoolgirls as young as 12, could be given permission for DIY abortions. This has given way to a huge controversy. This would mean that very young kids will be able to undergo termination without supervision, behind their parents’ backs, even as late as 19 weeks.

In the words of Tory Nadine Dorris, a leading anti-abortion MP, “We are talking about very young girls who will go home and abort on their own.” This has scared many a parent and is a cause of great concern for them. Parents feel that this is like giving permission to go ahead and indulge in sex because there is a secret “remedy” and it also creates a risk factor for the child herself, which is what a girl is at 12.

Critics have said this decision by the Government sends out a wrong message to young girls. Even the Christian Institute has expressed disapproval of this plan. The director of the Roman Catholic Linacre Centre for Healthcare Ethics, said, “A massive public health programme which targets girls as young as 10 or 12 may well create more problems than it solves .. sending the message that promiscuity is normal and expected.”

Then there are the vaccinations against HPV. HPV is the human papilloma virus, which is a major cause of cervical cancer. Opponents find the idea of vaccinating young girls against sexually transmitted infection objectionable.

It is feared that abortion kits and immunization programmes would actually lull girls into a false sense of security, which could increase the risk-taking behavior. A young impressionable mind, still learning to make the right decisions, could easily fall into the trap of thinking that a vaccination can shield her against every problem related to sex and boost the appetite for an early sexual life.

Experts take the example of the promotion of condoms some time back. Research showed that the promotion resulted in increased sexual activity because of the false hope of consequence-free sex. Studies over the years show all “harm reduction” approaches to reduce under-age sex have failed. This is seen in the soaring of pre-teenage and teenage abortions in Britain, after the widespread availability of condoms and morning-after pills. In total contrast, abstinence approaches that empower teenagers to remain sexually inactive till they get married have been seen to be far more successful in decreasing teenage pregnancy.

Critics feel that the Government should embrace the same hard-hitting abstinence approach to sex as it has to smoking. Rather than supplying cigarette filters in schools, it tells the children to “say no to smoking.” Similarly, they feel that instead of supplying tools to get rid of pregnancy, it should instead concentrate its efforts on discouraging kids from having sex so young.

Those who are supportive to introducing jabs and abortion kits for young girls wonder how far it is possible to control today’s generation from doing what they want to do.

“Come mothers and fathers throughout the land
And don’t criticize what you can’t understand
Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly agin’
Please get out of the new one if you can’t lend a hand.”

This song of Bob Dylan reflects the sentiments of the supporters. They stress that we as a community cannot afford to bury our heads like an ostrich about all the things happening in our children’s lives. Every step has to be taken by the parents and the Government to ensure our kids’ safety, because children being children, will anyway go ahead and do what they want to.

Opinions vary and this is a hugely controversial topic – one to ponder with all seriousness. There is no right or wrong answer to this and society will always be divided in its thinking. However, the one thing that both the opponents and proponents agree upon and are concerned about is the safety of every child.

Death begins in the colon! That may sound a little extreme but it is a fact that a troubled colon leads to all sorts of diseases, some more serious than the others. Colon cleansing is one of the best ways of cleaning an unhealthy colon that is severely out of balance. While it is necessary to learn about different methods of cleansing, it is of utmost importance to understand that several mishaps can occur if colon cleansing is not performed properly.

Do not believe anyone that says colon cleansing is free from any reactions. It is common to have physical reactions to the colon cleansing process. These reactions may include headaches, vomiting, fatigue, diarrhea or dizziness. For all the discomfort, this is actually a sign that the process is working and that you are actually eliminating toxins from the body. Although, these symptoms may not be considered as serious, if they do occur, you may need to temporarily cut back on your cleansing procedure.

You must learn not to confuse cleansing supplements with laxatives. Laxatives are not considered to be a good alternative, despite the fact that many health professionals recommend them. According to colon hydrotherapists, laxatives only stimulate the muscular movement of the colon. They can also cause dehydration and do nothing to loosen and remove the colon’s false lining. Laxatives may also weaken the colon by irritating and over-stimulating it, and it is best to stay away from them.

Colon cleansing should not be attempted without taking into consideration all the health factors. Those recovering from substance abuse, alcoholics, diabetics, people suffering from eating disorders, and individuals who are physically weak or have a hypothyroid or hypoglycemic condition should not undergo any form of cleansing or detoxification without strict medical supervision. It becomes inevitable to consult a physician before venturing to clean the colon, even when going in for alternative colon cleansing treatments using herbs.

We know that a colon cleansing program begins with the intake of adequate amounts of fiber among other things. However, increasing your intake of dietary fiber too rapidly can cause unpleasant side effects, such as gas, bloating, and even diarrhea. Someone in a state of ill health and gastrointestinal dysfunction cannot rush into a detoxification program. In people whose systems are deeply imbalanced, the body lacks the energy and proper organ function to run the complex processes of detoxifying itself. To avoid any of the unwanted side effects, fiber consumption should be increased gradually. Many people rush into it because they decide they need to get their health right immediately, and in the process suffer unexpected health problems.

Colon cleanses can be done at home too but the danger is of overdoing it. With colon cleansing, too much too soon can prove to be harmful. If attempting to do an enema at home, the equipment should be sterilized properly. Any negligence can easily lead to bacterial infections that could turn serious. It is also important to be gentle so as not to damage the intestinal wall.

Total fasting is bad for health too. Yes, there are many colon cleansing programs that stress on fasting but when you fast without consuming anything, your liver has to exert itself to flush out toxins. These toxins can easily get into the colon and then into the body. They eventually come back to the liver, putting a lot of load on the liver. There has to be intake of fresh organic juices, raw vegetables and lots of water to ensure that toxins are flushed out and do not recirculate.

According to the Department of Health, there have been cases where colon cleansing has caused severe illnesses and even death due to contaminated equipment, perforation (puncture) of intestinal walls or electrolyte (salt and mineral) imbalance. People at higher risk for a bowel injury include those that have ulcerative colitis, severe hemorrhoids, rectal or colon tumors, diverticulitis or those recovering from bowel surgery. People with heart failure or kidney problems may experience electrolyte imbalance. Since the colon walls can absorb substances, there is a chance that it can cause allergic reactions with the possibility of irreversible complications.

Although, colon cleansing in itself is not dangerous, the way it is performed has a big impact on the outcome. All these mishaps can be avoided by taking by ensuring it is done under the supervision of a healthcare professional.

Although Abortion is practiced throughout most of the world and has been practiced long before the recorded history, it still invokes passion and controversy. Abortion raises fundamental questions such as when life begins and what it is that makes us human. In America, abortion is a highly charged issue that involves ethical, religious and political debate. It continues to be a very contentious issue with few signs of abatement.

It is understandable that most women feel abortion is a moral decision for them and a totally personal decision, given their situation. This includes their religious beliefs, health, marital status, genetic makeup, age and other factors.

If a woman decides to undergo abortion, after consulting with her physician and her spiritual advisor, should the government veto her decision?

The answer to this is a whole lot of debate in the U.S., many times even bordering on violence.

Those who are against abortion say that the government should be able to override the decision of a woman and require her to continue with her pregnancy and childbirth. These people base their stance on the strong belief that human life begins at the ovum and spermatozoon stage. This makes a pre-embryo, embryo and fetus all humans that are entitled to the basic human right to live, along with all other human rights.

One of the most insidious examples of anti-abortion advocates is their argument for “post-abortion stress syndrome” in spite of the fact that there is no evidence to prove this. A proposed law in South Dakota would ban most abortions on the grounds that “an abortion subjects the pregnant woman to significant psychological and physical health risks.”

The Roman Catholic Church and many other religious bodies also strongly oppose abortion.

People who argue in favor of abortion say that it is totally the woman’s decision and the government has no right to interfere, or should limit its interference to only very rare circumstances. She should be able to have an abortion if she wants to. They base their stance on the belief that a human life begins after conception when the embryo’s heart starts beating, or when the fetus begins to take a human shape, or when it is born, or it half emerges from the mother, or is completely disconnected from the mother and becomes an independent human life.

In the United States, abortion has been made legal. Supporters of legal abortion say that this legalization resulted in a huge decrease in women dying from abortion and that’s because abortion is not a dangerous procedure any longer, since women do not have to go through self-induced abortions and they are done by experienced physicians.

If we go back to our ancestors, Aristotle taught “delayed ensoulment,” which meant that a fetus in the initial stages was nothing but a vegetable soul and evolves into a human soul later in gestation. This was even called ensoulment and was believed to occur at 90 days after conception for a female fetus and 40 days after conception for a male fetus. In those days, since gender could not be determined, abortion and contraception were not condemned. It was only in the later stages of pregnancy that a human soul is destroyed. On the other hand, Jewish faith generally opposed abortion, unless it posed a risk to the life of the mother. Over the centuries, different stances were taken at different times.

Supporters of abortion argue that the bible is also completely silent on the issue of abortion. The word “abortion” does not appear in any of the biblical translations. They go on to relate that according to the bible, life begins at birth – when a baby draws in its first breath and the embryo or fetus is not a human being. The bible gives the definition of life as “breath” several times.

However, anti-abortionists show basis in the bible for their beliefs, by citing passages or quotes that actually do not use the word abortion or pro-life. They say there are several scriptures in the Bible where God indirectly shows that he is pro-life.

“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”

As far as the United States Political parties are concerned, they have taken different sides, with the majority of the Republicans being pro-life and a majority of the Democrats supporting a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion.

Belief that a human being exists at conception is purely a matter of faith, not fact. Several Christian denominations and religious groups now agree that the bible does not condemn abortion anywhere and that abortion should continue to be legal.

The general feeling is that it is important to find common ground – not by going completely against abortion or “favoring” abortion as the taking of an innocent life can never be acceptable. This has to be dealt with in such a way that it reduces the number of abortions. Abortions can be legalized as far health risks for the baby or mother are concerned and not in other situations.

The debates and discussions will continue as long as there is conscience and as long as life matters.